MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sandeel

Pages: [1] 2
1 / Re: "Similar content" rejections
« on: May 01, 2020, 11:22 »
Split up your similars into separate submissions.

That's what I do to avoid those rejections.

Thanks, but I have no similars in one batch. They reject images in which they find similarities to files that are several years old.

2 / "Similar content" rejections
« on: May 01, 2020, 03:44 »
What's up with these "similar content" rejections? I never had those, until recently. It's enough for a composite to have an element which I had used once before to get a rejection. In my case I find this extremely unfair, because the end results are not similar at all and I work for hours on every single image. At the same time I see whole batches of really similar content when I go through fresh content that they accept. Is there a way to make them see the injustice or is this a dumb robot deciding?  :-\

Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock took my money away
« on: February 15, 2019, 03:45 »
Yep, they are taking back all those large sales.
All that remains are the under 1 sales, almost all the time.
I was doing great on Fotolia, the "upgrade" to Adobe Stock is a total downgrade for me, and not just the performance, the website is utterly unprofessional too.
But if they go on like this, I'm going to be really angry at them. There is not even transparency in the sense that I can have correct stats. They took back a lot of money but the stats still show the higher royalties that they don't pay. Come on. Be more professional.

PhotoDune / Re: Anyone unworthy of Photodune yet?
« on: February 08, 2017, 06:53 »
... In speaking with photographers and knowing the limitations of our platform (including cumbersome uploading procedures), we felt it would be much easier and more successful for authors to resubmit a fresh portfolio based on our new guidelines than to ask them to go and clean out their existing individual photos manually. For portfolios that had a higher percentage of items that would need to be removed, this would be a particularly unrealistic request to make.  For example submitting 100 fresh photos is much easier and less time consuming than going through and deleting 900 out of 1000.

It sounds simple when you write down some numbers, but how are we supposed to know which 100 of the 1000 you like?  :o

PhotoDune / Re: Anyone unworthy of Photodune yet?
« on: February 07, 2017, 09:26 »
sandeel, what they mean by that is that if you have files on other marketplaces your account remain active. if you are only selling on photodune marketplace then you will get paid your balance, even if its under the payout threshold. i have to say, thats very nice of them, that they decided not to keep your money.

Oh thanks, I did get it wrong then. I hope it's okay with you if I modify my post.

PhotoDune / Re: Anyone unworthy of Photodune yet?
« on: February 07, 2017, 09:06 »

I have an account here at Microstock and do read all your comments. I specifically pointed email recipients to our forum post because responding to authors via email would not have been scaleable.

If you have any questions about the process or next steps, please feel free to ask them on the forum post.

A lot of the comments here are around low earnings, and that is part of the reason we're working to transform PhotoDune. Library growth has consistently outstripped sales growth, and an increasing number of items (and authors) have never made a sale. All of this despite an ever-increasing stream of customers we know frequently use photos in their projects.

Our updated quality and commercial demand guidelines are more detailed than before, so it's clear what we're evaluating and, based on our data, what we believe customers are looking to buy.

Some authors haven't posted new content in several years, other items while meeting previous guidelines if reviewed again would likely not pass. Some authors were posting the same image with small variations or in a sequence. These actions filled up the library without providing true choice to customers and lowering the overall quality of the library.

Sales on other marketplaces didn't factor into our decision-making. For Envato, what we're aiming for is a sustainable library of photos that gives customers a genuine choice and provides more opportunities for authors to earn.

As far as balances go, at the moment we're finalizing amounts owed and preparing our systems for a final payout. As the forum post says, for anyone with balances under the minimum threshold who sold on PhotoDune exclusively, you'll be sent an email with the final balance and our finance department will send you a payout.

Exact timelines are still being worked out for this last part but it's not going to take long.

Again, if you have questions about the process, please feel free to ask them on the Envato forum post.

You think this makes sense, but it doesn't. You are just blaming the contributors for your own failure. You could have been more strict and tasteful at the reviews all along. Now you are dreaming of a library that is better than everywhere else for your relatively small "stream" of customers. You think the microstock contributors will come to you and give you only their top 10 bestsellers or something? After showing such attitude towards us?

I can't specifically speak for the others here, so I'll tell you something about myself. I live in Western Europe and comfortably live from my small microstock portfolio. Just saying. I believe the "filling up the library without providing true choice to customers and lowering the overall quality of the library" can't really apply to me, how else do I generate a whole lot of sales elsewhere? Anyway, I don't need Envato, it's your loss if you don't want us and I don't think it will work out for you.

Edit: a question about payouts was answered below by Microstockphoto.

123RF / Re: What happened to the faved/followed feature?
« on: July 06, 2015, 02:44 »
I don't know what they are doing but my income drastically decreased in May and June!
In the previous 12 months I was making around $300-400 a month.
May 2015 - $170
June 2015 - $140
What's going on?! >:(

Similar situation here, though a bit less drastic. My average for February, March and April was $300, May and June only $180. July is being even slower. I have uploaded stuff that should sell well in summer, but 123 hardly sells my new work. That's why I was putting some hope into the faved feature.

123RF / Re: What happened to the faved/followed feature?
« on: July 03, 2015, 17:04 »
Thank you for the replies. That's it, then. I'm not so sure about the effect it had either, but I did use it regularly.

123RF / Re: What happened to the faved/followed feature?
« on: July 01, 2015, 01:47 »
I see, thanks. Maybe you're right.

123RF / What happened to the faved/followed feature?
« on: June 30, 2015, 03:16 »
There was this "faved" feature which was renamed to "followed" if I remember correctly. You could choose some of your images and they were supposed to get better rankings in the search. Now I can't find the feature anymore, it was under "sell images". Have you ever used it and did it help? Is it really gone or am I missing something?


I agree too. The way I see it the main point of categories ist to be able to search with a keyword within a category. That way you can better clarify what you mean. Let's say you're looking for a wooden background and you type in wood, background and get lots of forests. Now some people would change the keywords, e.g. add "texture" or "-forest", but others would keep the keywords unchanged and search inside a backgrounds category.

If that's true, the categories don't need to be too specific at all. Even one subcategory isn't really necessary, but if they like it precise then one subcategory would be more than enough. For landscapes they have done it and that's great, so much better than before, but most categories are terrible.

The subcategories of Plants and flowers / plants are the following:

raspberry bush    ;D

Lol! I suppose we should be thankful they gave us the "other" option.

PhotoDune / Re: "We need you to change your password"
« on: May 19, 2014, 17:35 »
Thanks a lot disorderly, that's very helpful.  :)

PhotoDune / "We need you to change your password"
« on: May 19, 2014, 16:25 »
Trying to log in to PhotoDune, I'm getting a page with the following message:

"Hi there. We need you to change your password.
An email has been sent to (my E-mail address) with further instructions and a link that you'll need to follow. Click on the link, enter a new password and you'll be back in business.

I might be paranoid, but is it safe to click on a link in such an E-mail? Isn't that a common way to steal passwords? Have you got that message too, and how do you know it's really from Envato?


I don't know if I have missed something, but could it be that the new rates do not regard the ranking? So white is getting the same as emerald?

Adobe Stock / Re: Keyword spamming at Fotolia
« on: March 09, 2013, 18:12 »
Most spam produce the automatic translation function on Fotolia  (and at other agencies as well). As a native German speaker, I write my keywords on Fotolia in German - sometimes the translator generates absolute nonsense.

Exactly. I agree with every word, except "sometimes", lol!

As long as keyword spamming goes 'unpunished', it remains profitable in the mind (and maybe in sales) of the offender.
Can't find 'em now but there have been images at FT (from Japanese contributors) that contained 200 keywords whereas there's supposed to be a limit of 50.

That's due to the translation as well. I think one word is often translated into many.

17 / Re: All albums gone ?
« on: February 21, 2013, 19:04 »
I never made any albums, but that made my whole portfolio into one album which I could view, but now that's gone too. To be clear, my whole portfolio is gone! I can see a page with my latest uploads but when I click on "view portfolio" or "images ###" (it says the correct number of my images) then I land on an empty page with 0 images. Now that's great. And it's been like this for a month or so.

What a mess.  :o

Here my problem starts: FT is accepting only a part of my photos, more than 50% are rejected for technical reasons. This is very hard to understand because mostly the photos are from the same design series and session, same settings and quality. There is no system in accepting and rejecting. Very confusing.

You speak of photos from the same series with the same settings and quality. Let's take your wooden letters series. Even if you keep everything on the camera and your lights unchanged, each one of the photos is different, that's the nature of photos. Look at your background. Had it been a clean white, you would have fewer rejections and more sales. Look how some images have a white area at the corners while others don't. Then there are the shadows. Depending on what letters there are and how they are positioned, some shots have stronger shadows than others, and some are very clear and easy to read while others are not. For example you have two versions of "teuro"; the one with straight letters is clear and easy to read but the other one isn't because of the shadows. Try to see it through the customer's eyes: just have a very fleeting look at both small thumbnails, then you see what I mean.

So my point is that the images are not the same quality. In photography so many details count, and what they call technical quality doesn't depend on the settings and gear alone. I know it can be confusing when Fotolia rejects due to "technical" issues, but all it means is that the image didn't look professional enough to the reviewer. If they are not really impressed with the series they might take some and reject others that they like less.

19 / Re: New Shutterstock TOS update
« on: February 16, 2012, 06:59 »
What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

If "no faces or people at all" are in the image then how could it possibly be a 'sensitive use'? Inanimate objects or animals can't really be offended in that way (except for that bloke on SS who dresses his dog up in clothes, obviously).

"Sensitive uses" will be a small fraction of the licenses secured by these high volume buyers, but participation gives you full access to all of the sales opportunities that these buyers provide.
What this means to me is that if you opting out of "sensitive use", you opting out of ALL sales opportunities that big volume buyers provide. No sensitive use - no big sales, regardless of what your portfolio content is, faces or no faces. Correct me if I am wrong, I'd like to be.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

I was thinking of any sale for sensitive subjects - let's take a random example. Say you have a closeup of a hand inserting an injection into an arm. The buyer might be uncertain if the use for a drug addiction or AIDS or something like that is allowed. I don't know how the situation looks from the buyer's point of view if the portfolio is opted out. Obviously the contributer wouldn't have a problem with that kind of picture being used for a sensitive use, but would the buyer still be free (or feel free) to use it?

20 / Re: New Shutterstock TOS update
« on: February 12, 2012, 06:25 »
What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.


And how is it that the page showing the licenses that I can buy doesn't contain the SOD?

It's not a licence, just a way to buy content. Like ODs for example

But ODs are listed there. So are 25-A-Day Subscriptions and Enhanced Subscriptions, but no other pricing than those. Are you seeing the same?

Do you have to opt in or something to get the SODs? I'm getting the feeling something is wrong, because I have a few ELs every month, but only one SOD so far??

And how is it that the page showing the licenses that I can buy doesn't contain the SOD? Is that option only for U.S. buyers? I live in Europe.


The SOD program is still in beta and only available limited markets.  Mine have all come from the US.

I see, thanks. Maybe it just takes more time.

Do you have to opt in or something to get the SODs? I'm getting the feeling something is wrong, because I have a few ELs every month, but only one SOD so far??

And how is it that the page showing the licenses that I can buy doesn't contain the SOD? Is that option only for U.S. buyers? I live in Europe.


I tried the different flashes with the same softboxes, so that wasn't the problem.

Gels seems to be the only way if I don't want to get rid of my speedlights. I already ordered two that seem right, though I don't know how exactly to determine the needed color. As you say: "Don't try to combine lights with different color temperatures" well yes, that's exactly what is bothering me so much. What I ask myself is whether other strobes will give me more neutral color. Today I compared the strobe to overcast daylight and it was distinctly more red than the daylight.

So, thanks for clarifying that using gels is the right way to go as long as I am forced to mix lights. I still need to find out how to attach them to a strobe with a softbox.

And still what I would really like to know is the tint of one or two other strobes than mine.
Let's put the question this way:
When you open a RAW image in Adobe Camera RAW (it was shot with your strobes) and the white balance is perfectly neutral (safest would be to click on a gray card area with the white balance tool), then what value does the tint slider show? I would appreciate that information a lot.

Thanks for all the help.

General Photography Discussion / Re: resaving jpegs
« on: January 15, 2012, 08:05 »
Let me add that you would see more problems if your image contained something like a sky or more tricky details in shadow areas. The well lit face won't show much artefacting. But you're right, it's not such a priority subject for a class.

Thank you very much for the patient responses.

Hi Sandeel,

Have you tried setting a custom white balance in camera?  I find that my flashes don't always match exact color temperature with my studio strobes but it doesn't matter typically because no matter what even if I'm only using my studio strobes or even just one I always set the white balance manually.  I use the Ed Pierce Photovision target to do it.  I still shoot RAW of course because it's never just perfect and I like the flexibility.  Customizing the white balance takes a lot of the guess work out though.

Okay I have to explain better what exactly I do. I do use custom white balance. If I set up a new WB to match the new strobe, of course I get perfect gray. The problem is that the color of the strobe is just too different from the Nikon SB-800 and a neutral daylight. If I fire the strobe and a speedlight at the same time on a flat surface then there's no problem, I could still set a custom white balance and get neutral color, but in realistic situations mixed light color is just bad for the results. My custom white balance can either match the one light source or the other. On a face for example, on the side where the strobe is stronger the color is different than on the other side. The white balance setting doesn't fully solve the problem.

My plan is to buy another three strobes anyway. But still I wanted to be able to combine them with other light sources. I don't want to have 4 strobes which differ too much from other studio strobes, but maybe that's not the case and all studio strobes in general have more magenta than hotshoe flashes. (??)

I don't think -21 is a huge swing towards green or red either.  If the pic looks right then go with it.  Be sure to color calibrate your monitor though so that it looks right on your screen and everyone elses :)

Good luck,


Perhaps it's not huge, but it's well noticeable at the first look. My monitor is calibrated.

Sandeel are you mixing your light sources?

If the only light is the new unit, it will be correct with auto white balance. Otherwise you need to know the correct color temperature of that unit.

Doesn't matter, except in some extreme cases, if you have a slight tint to the light, as long as ALL THE LIGHT is the same. The auto WB should compensate.

I know mixing light sources should be avoided as far as possible, I know the results, it just doesn't look clean. I just want to know if the strobe of my choice is reasonably close to more well-known strobes or perhaps is it junk. Actually I find everything quite nice about it, only the light color worries me and I have no comparison to other strobes.

As you say, slight differences are alright and can be compensated by the correct white balance. But:

If you are getting a cast or tint, and with only one light source or all the same, there's something seriously wrong. With mixed light sources, it will make you crazy because you have two or more whites and you'll never get just one.

This is where custom white balance beats setting it to 5500K for example. Even Auto WB will adjust.

I still don't understand how you can get a tint with a correct WB setting? Even if you have full spectrum lights vs less of the visible. By definition the WB should make things White.

Easier said, the lights should not have a tint or produce one, after you set the WB to that particular light. Something is wrong. Either with the lights are reflecting off something else or your WB settings are set for some other source?

Yes your different Mfg. units may be different colors. Most Xenon flash tubes are close to the same unless there's some added coating to the glass, or coloration of the glass tube itself. The color of the electrical arc through Xenon, is a constant color.

Do you have some modeling lights staying on? (producing the tint)  Are you shooting lowest power which made drop your color Temp. down to 4700K?

Well, like I told Mat, if I fire differently colored light sources onto a flat surface then there's no problem, the white balance will do just fine, but what about everything else? Say I shoot a portrait and have the pinkish light on the right and the more greenish one on the left. The skin tones will not be perfect. Where the one light casts shadows the color of the other light comes to the fore and the white balance must be somewhere in between.

Now, if I find out that mixing strobes and speedlights will always get bad results because the technology used by strobes generally produces a more pinkish light or speedlights are too greenish anyway, then I'll give up mixing and just wait to have 4 identical strobes. But I was thinking that strobes are supposed to produce neutral daylight. My Jinbei has 5500 Kelvin, which is fine. I thought I could mix them with the Nikons because they have about the same Kelvin number. I don't see why the green/magenta information isn't somehow included into the color temperature information of devices.

No, my modelling light doesn't stay on when the flash fires. I had no reflected light with color cast. And I have tried at different powers, full, half, everything. Actually the color remains pretty much consistent.

Thanks a lot so far.  :)

Pages: [1] 2


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle